Talk:Red dragon disciple
Level progression tables FWIW, I prefer the tables with the feats, etc. explicitly noted at each level, rather than just the summary of the feats' effects at that level. E.g., the May 25, 2011 table is easier to follow than the version that follows. - MrZork 02:34, December 1, 2011 (UTC) * Would you find it easier to follow if the table was sparser? Something like: : This could make it easier to see where the increases happen without essentially listing the feats twice. (One thing I do not like about the old table is that it makes it harder to pick out the non-repeating feats. They are mashed in with 5 mentions of dragon abilities, 4 draconic armors, 3 dragon breaths, and 2 hit die increases. That's 14 entries for four feats, crowding out the 5 entries for the four feats plus wings that do not repeat.) One issue with this is that some of the columns are cumulative, while others are not, but that could possibly be worked around. --The Krit 00:17, December 2, 2011 (UTC) * I like the density of the current version of the table; I just prefer that there be a Feats column with all the feats in it and links the first time they are mentioned. That way, it's easy to see the connection between the effect and the feat the player will see at level-up that caused the effect, and more details are just a click away. But, I do see what you mean in that there was a fair amount of duplication in the table and maybe some of it could go away. E.g., the Feats column could just say "dragon abilities" instead of "dragon abilities (+2 Str)", since the Abilities columns make clear what ability is increased. Ditto for draconic armor, fire breath, hit dice increase, etc. Something like the following: : I agree that having some columns of cumulative effects and others of the marginal effect isn't entirely consistent, but it seems pretty clear what is implied. If it's a problem, maybe changing the column headers might help. E.g. "Total AC Bonus". But, even the mixed effects are pretty clear, IMO. : (BTW, this is unrelated, but the editor is putting my comments above the previous ones when I preview or publish, even though I am putting them below when I am WYSIWYG editing. I have to go into Source mode to move them to where they belong.) -MrZork 02:03, December 2, 2011 (UTC) :* Would this be a compromise? ::WhiZard 02:24, December 2, 2011 (UTC) ::* I could accept WhiZard's version as a compromise. --The Krit 12:31, December 2, 2011 (UTC) ::* I am fine with getting rid of the repeated listing of feats that have effects at different levels, as per WhiZard's Special column above. But, why get rid of showing the Hit Point Range, Hit Die, AC Bonus, etc. in each row? It makes for an emptier looking table, but no one was complaining about that, were they? If that's supposed to address the cumulative/non-cumulative effect issue, it doesn't. I'd rather those stats were listed at each row, as they are in the current version. How's this? ::: :::-MrZork 19:39, December 2, 2011 (UTC) :::* Leaving out the repeated values can make it easier to spot where those values increase, making the progression easier to follow, which is something that someone was complaining about way back in the opening comment. :P --The Krit 03:07, December 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::* Huh? I was trying to comment that the newest table had things missing that made it harder to see which feat was responsible for which effect, not that the new table had too much in it. I didn't mention anything in that first comment about repeated values, or spotting where values increase, and the preferred example I linked to (and the later ones I gave here) actually had all the repeated values. Goes to show how easy it is to miscommunicate. Anyway, to clarify: I have no issue with repeated values in any column that shows a cumulative effect. If folks think that listing the feats every time they repeat makes for too busy a table, then maybe just list them the first time, as per the last example. But, while it's not a big deal either way, I prefer having things like current AC bonus and hit die listed in each row, since that's how tables are usually read. -MrZork 03:16, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::* You haven't read the introductory paragraph (to the section; right before the table) that was added with the new table format? --The Krit 11:36, December 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::::* I read it. I think it's better to have the feats listed (at least once) in the table so that it's quick and clear to see which feat is providing the effect listed at the given level and linked so that someone wanting more detail can click on the feat right there. -MrZork 21:20, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::::* Why is "at the given level" so important when these feats basically provide increasing benefits as class level increases (so no longer "given level" but "given levels", getting closer to "all levels")? I think that is giving too many duties to the table. The intro paragraph provides a clear explanation of which feat is providing the effects listed (in the same order that they appear in the table even), with links so that someone wanting more detail can click on the feat right there. The only aspect that might be missing is "quick", but might that be more a factor of people getting used to a new layout rather than a shortcoming of the layout itself? --The Krit 23:00, December 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::* This thread has focused on a few areas and I get the impression I am not communicating as clearly as I should. So, I would like to (hopefully) clarify that what I am proposing for the table is exactly the table that is currently up, but with the feats listed as they are in WhiZard's compromise table above. Would that be okay? -MrZork 04:42, December 5, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::* That would be okay with me. I still view it as an inferior compromise, but it works for me. We don't have to press for a clearer and detailed discussion of what people like and don't like about the various layouts (or of why a specific change was proposed). --The Krit 18:16, December 6, 2011 (UTC) * I am still thinking that the dexterity and wisdom columns should be dropped since there are no bonuses to those abilities. --The Krit 22:55, December 20, 2011 (UTC) Abbreviating intelligence in skill point line? Is the style rule to avoid abbreviating "intelligence" to "int" in the skill point descriptions? E.g. :Skill points: 2 + intelligence modifier instead of :Skill points: 2 + int modifier I was curious about this at some point and checked several class articles and it appeared that the norm was to abbreviate. I see the latest change to RDD seems to be primariliy a switch to the unabbreviated version. Should we change the rest of the class descriptions? - MrZork (talk) 21:16, December 25, 2012 (UTC) * Well, abbreviations are barriers to people who do not understand them, so I see no reason to use them needlessly. Plus, this wiki has plenty of storage space to accommodate the extra letters. :) The class articles were all written originally using the "int" abbreviation. I changed this article, and intended to change the others as well, but I got sidetracked somewhere along the line. --The Krit (talk) 21:31, January 21, 2013 (UTC) Scripting The Sinfar server has a working scripted solution for red dragon disciples making it the only known exception to the previous bullet point. I've taken the above note off the article page until someone can produce the script in question, or explain how base ability scores can be modified in NWScript. (Sure, it can be done via Letoscript/NWNX, but "scripting" means NWScript specifically.) --The Krit (talk) 15:18, July 30, 2013 (UTC) Hit die progression changes? Is there a reason for 211.209.208.194's changes on July 15, 2015 to the levels at which the hit dice increases occur? As best I can tell, these new increases (at levels 5 and 7) are incorrect and the previous version (at levels 4 and 6) were correct. I just leveled a RDD toon and the HD increases took place at levels 4 and 6. I would propose that the changes be reverted, but I assume there was some reason that they were made in the first place. - MrZork (talk) 19:53, July 15, 2015 (UTC) * I just tested it in-game, and with a 10 constitution, I was able to get 3-6 hp at RDD level 1, 4-8 at RDD level 4, and 5-10 at RDD level 6. Reverting the edits. --The Krit (talk) 05:37, July 16, 2015 (UTC) * Not related to the disputed edit, but should a +1/+1 be added to hit points for level 7 and above due to the +2 to constitution? WhiZard (talk) 01:46, July 17, 2015 (UTC) :* Good point. I don't think the level progression table should be changed. But, perhaps a note that the +2 CON bump at RDD level 7 can result in a large HP gain at that level would help explain what a player will see in the level-up summary for that level. - MrZork (talk) 04:01, July 17, 2015 (UTC) Dragon disciple that follows the D&D rules? Anyone knows a hakpak that adds a Dragon Disciple that follows the D&D Rules?? For example > - Be able to be a silver/white/green/etc dragon disciple - Change your race to half dragon at lv 10 - Gain caster level - Have dragonform - Be able to use breath weapon(and spells) in dragon form (...) Spells that shapechange you to dragon are in game, silver/green/blue dragons are in game... Everyone who read the monster manual knows that red dragons tends to be chaotic evil and don't interact well with humans. Silver Dragons are probably the mostly like dragon to interbreed with humans or elves, they don't devour intelligent creatures, "an unusual trait they offer is the love of human dining," source > http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Silver_dragon Have a silver dragon in festivals drinking and having ~fun~ with woman isn`t "rare" compared to a Red Dragon doing the same of falling in love with humans is extreme rare. 19:40, September 24, 2017 (UTC)Victor